Not in any of my comments, you haven't.
Listen, I'm not trying to invade your privacy or asking you to disclose identifying personal information, and I am honestly not trying to be snarky, but you're making it sound like you have in the past or currently direct experience in this area, but it's hard to tell.
I
do have experience here - three decades of work experience that involved product management, working deeply with development/engineering teams, and for the last decade and a half working directly in the area of engineering that had significant focus on minimizing warranty claims because (as you imply later in your post) we have done the math on how much less expensive it is to spend upfront to avoid warranty claims than pay to execute them - spend a nickel to save a quarter (or more) kind of thing.
My point is this - you're making some pretty sweeping statements. It sounds like you've just read about it and not lived it. It would be helpful to know so I can figure out how much effort I'm
Example: I grew up using Snap-on. My dad inherited his professional mechanic grandfather's extensive collection of mechanics tools, along with having his own kit. I was taught to not abuse tools, and to use the right to for the job whenever possible. Nearly always had the right tool, at least when working on cars. Never broke a tool.
That's a nice example. I have a different background, but a similar approach of not abusing tools and using the proper tool for the job. I've managed to break very few.
But neither of our life experiences are statistically significant.
On this one my point is you can't ride the "Statistically Significant" horse as aggressively as you have and then tell romantic stories of your upbringing as it relates to evaluating quality of tools. For me, having been on both sides ("Make" side vs. "Use" side, though not with tools but the logic still works), there are times when talking about sample size is justified. But you can't just use it as a shield whenever you want.
One side of my family were mechanics, from one region of the country. One side of my family were farmers, from a different region. The prevalent belief among both sides was that warranty quality was indicative of tool quality. One brand tool with a lifetime warranty was approximately as good as another brand of the same kind of tool with the same lifetime warranty.
I'm not sure that's a safe bet - lots of companies have promised attractive warranties and just made them very hard to use...
Unfortunately, in the pre-internet days it often took hard lessons to learn which was which.
As a young adult, I took that wisdom to heart and purchased a basic mechanics kit from Craftsman, with about a dozen socket rails (across 1/4-3/8-1/2, inch/metric, 6-/12-point, deep/shallow), along with ratchets and associated accessories, combination wrenches, screwdrivers, hex keys, ignition wrenches, etc. Despite my own kit getting less use and no abuse, I've broken some of the tools over the years. Overall, the Craftsman kit has been good, much better than buying junk tools from discount stores as they were needed. But the Craftsman haven't been as good as the Snap-on stuff that I used growing up.
Well sure. But as men of a certain age I'd hope we can agree that manufacturing as a whole (at least when it comes to tools) has taken a lot of leaps since we were young adults. It does not take buying a Snap On tool these days to get quality. Mainly it takes a company willing to pay attention to the details.
That's how warranties are done, too. It isn't just the insurance industry that uses actuarial mathematics. Actuarial mathematics are probability, statistics, and financial mathematics. Every industry uses them to one extent or another.
The important point is the bad driver pays. Until the cost of insurance makes driving cost-prohibitive, the bad drivers will tend to pay their higher premiums instead of finding different transportation options. Similarly, as long as the cost of warranty replacements doesn't increase the price so much that the tools stop selling, everything is good for the manufacturer, no matter the quality of their tools. As in any other industry, costs are passed along to the consumer.
These are not comparative examples, at least in my opinion. One is a statistical model based on a spectrum of human behavior, demographics, living location, automobile types, etc. and one is line and field failure rate. Or more simply, one is behavioral and is executional. Different math with very different spans of control.
Are you suggesting that insurance companies don't spend a lot of money reducing claims and claim sizes? They do, and they do it for exactly the same reasons that manufacturers are always trying to reduce their warranty costs. That doesn't mean that the current expected benefits paid aren't covered by premiums. Same with manufacturers: Warranties induce costs, the expected amount of which are included in the initial price.
That's an oversimplification. Beyond the difference stated above, the other big factor is the span of control an insurance company has on the customers they manage. To some extent they manage it by setting pricing to filter the customers to the most-beneficial price model (or to some other company), but the reason they're so maniacal about the math is it is constantly moving under them. They can't set a level and manage it the way a manufacturer of a tool can. And insurance companies have vastly more soft costs (which you're correct in saying they spend a lot of time and money managing to keep a lid on to as great an extent as possible). I used to have a buddy who worked at a fairly high level at a large insurance company, and he referred to it once as "battling the kraken of humanity with a glowing actuarial sword" but at some point said there was a lot of Hydra in that kraken (we'd had a few beverages that night...).
At the end of the day, the world of tool manufacturing (and more) has changed so vastly in the last 15 years it's incredible. The internet makes it easy to praise and shame companies, to find and provide support and to have communities like Garage Journal exist where knowledgeable people when it comes to tools exchange information and experiences.
It also serves as a democratizing force against companies talking a big game and then not delivering. Word gets out. It might be challenging to quantify, but the "when there's smoke there's fire" principle is pretty powerful.
I try not to have sacred cows or brand loyalty to any company in particular - I try to be brutally objective and as information-based as I can. We're all going to lack a
definitive statistical answer. But I think we can have insight that comes from a variety of sources to get pretty close to the information if we had that data.
they test thousands of items a year and somehow one test from 40 years ago makes them clueless because one manufacturer put a cheap POS blade on their saw and they were supposed to correct for that. Nope. Get over it.
